Are new guns better than old ones?

[BigBill]

I did notice a difference between the new m58 & new m57 I purchased with the action. One was smooth while the other was a tad rough. I lubed it with moly now there the same feel. I lube all my revolvers with moly so each action has the same feel.

 

[wolverine]

Morning Cal 44

That really depends on the definition of BETTER, better at what?

I have some older Smith revolvers & some new Smith revolvers.

Almost across the board the older Smiths have better fit & finish,
and, in most cases my older Smiths came from the factory with
smoother actions & smoother trigger pulls.

Of the last 10 S&W revolvers I have bought 9 have had to back
to Smith for some sort of warranty repair (some have had to go
back more than once).


Back when S&W almost went out of business most of their talented
workers left for more stable positions with a brighter future in
different companies, so, like the auto companies, Smith was
left with the least talented, or least caring, workers.

I guess I can't blame Smith for pushing guns out the door as
fast as they can hammer them together now. Even their blatant
junk sells fast at my local gun shops. Most new gun owners just
don't know any better, or have that "want-it-right-now" attitude,
so buy Smith's wares even with their blatant & glaring flaws.

I guess I'm no better as I will look at 5 new Smiths then buy
the one that looks the easiest to make right, not the one with
no flaws but the one that looks easiest to make it into a decent shooter.

The few of us that look for (& expect) some quality in new
guns-- Smith either addresses that in their rather decent customer
service department or hopes the customer will get tired of
complaining & just go away. (it seems to be working for them
as they (Smith) seems to be selling all they can ship out as fast
as the shops receive them).

I know in a few of the local gun shops that I frequent I will look
at 2 or 3 new Smith Revolvers that just came in that morning
& find major flaws like lock-up issues, or very large cyl to
barrel gaps, or canted barrel/barrel shrouds, or horrendous
trigger pulls, or very rough machining, or poor fits & finishes
but next time I go into that shop ALL are sold out. SO, Smith
must be doing something right to get all their new offering
sold out so fast at a pretty high premium price at that.

It's just modern America-- buy the best you can find then
hopefully work it out so all the blatant defects can be ironed
out over time.


I guess the upside on the newer Smith revolvers is: they do
seem to work OK as received they just don't show the quality
& care in assembly of the older hand fitted Smith's.

Same reason the Colt Python bit the dust-- just cost too much
to put the required quality into for the selling price so Colt
discontinued in favor of cheaper to assemble higher profit
mass produced products.

In my eyes the thing that Smith currently has going for it is
offering new models that just are not available in older higher
quality hand fitted revolvers. You want a 5 shot "L" frame .44
mag you must buy current.

So it seems that Smith's bean counters have worked it out
to offer JUST ENOUGH quality to stay in business but make
the new offerings MIM, CNC machined, & loosely assembled
to sell everything they make with not enough warranty returns
to kill their bottom line profits.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

. . . .

Or is older just always better?

I think it depends on why you want the revolver or pistol. For example, if you want a non-shooter to add to a collection, then usually, older is better.

If you want one to use hard and shoot thousands of rounds, then there is nothing much wrong with an older weapon, as long as you understand parts are a problem, service may be a problem, and it may not be capable of repair if it breaks, depending on the problem encountered.

So, one way that I can think of that new guns are better is for hard use. At least there are parts available and the factory has parts and can either do repairs or make replacements.

 

[CaptRon956]

Are new guns better than old ones?

Yeah, I'll pick a M&P shield over a flintlock any day.

 

[murphydog]

Objectively, with advances in metallurgy and machining tolerances, you can argue that modern S & W products are "better". If technology could eliminate all the human factors involved in the final product (assembly, metal finish, fitting) it would be a close call.

However, subjectively older guns (nicer finish, evidence of hand fitting - the human touches) just seem better to many. I've had a few older NIB S & W products that were not up to par, but by now they have been fixed or scrapped for the most part, so they are not around to cloud our happy memories . It's nice to have a choice between old and new.

 

[walkin' trails]

S&W's quality since the 70s has had its lows, always corresponding with foreign ownership. My 18-4 out of the box had a rear sight that wouldn't adjust no matter which way or how long you turned the screw.

Now, if they were to combine modern metallurgy and cnc with QC and finishes from the 50s....

 

[Muss Muggins]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

For example, is my two year old 60-15 stronger than the first generation 357 magnum 60's?

I can think of a few reason's it might be:

1. Perhaps metallurgy has continued to improve with better steel used.

2. More advanced CNC manufacturing tooling may result in closer tolerances than a decade or two ago. I know on Buffalo Bore's site they show higher performance (faster) ballistic results for more modern S&W guns than older revolvers of the same barrel length. They comment on this and attribute it to more precisely fitted parts.

3. The second (or third) generation of most mechanical products can be better than the first as bugs and weaknesses are ironed out.

Or is older just always better?

Like most products, some new guns are better, some old guns are still the bomb. Some innovations made a good gun great, some made a great gun average.

 

[Rick_A]

I like to use this as an example of new vs old, a 1954 357 and 2009 22-4. Neither one is perfect but they're both functionally exceptional in all respects. The 357 has an unpolished trigger guard. The 22-4 had a proud side plate. The 357 has an uneven barrel-cylinder gap. The 22-4 has a rough outside edge on the rear of the barrel inside the frame. The double action on both pull the same. The 357 breaks as the cylinder locks up. The 22-4 locks up early and can be staged. The single action on the 357 is 1/2lb lighter. It should be with a 60 year head start. The hardening on the hammer and trigger of the 357 looks prettier, as does the hardwood vs the laminate on the newer.
20140707_133632 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

Folks love to elevate their vintage guns to a high plateau and look at the new ones with a critical eye. Nothing made by man is perfect whether made by hand or by CNC. For those that claim all their vintage guns are pinnacles of perfection and the new ones are functional but fundamentally flawed I tend to find that the truth is somewhere in between. They are surely made quite differently though are functionally the same. Which is better is largely a matter of opinion. I base mine on the example before me.

The guy that sent back 90% of the guns needs better luck, lower standards, or should stop breaking them. That's unbelievable.

 

[wolverine]

Morning Rick_A

I guess I'm not sure what you are comparing there. The newest gun in your comparison review is 6 years old. (LOTS of changes at S&W over the last 6 years)

 

[mg357]

I think the new guns are better the metallurgy is better.

In terms of construction the new guns are stronger.

The new guns are easier to find and purchase because so many people are buying the older guns.

 

[spad124]

My only first hand comparison of old vs new is my range where I was speaking with a guy that has a 625jm & we were comparing my 625-2 1988. I felt not much difference in trigger pull of course his is 4" mine is 5" there was the il, frame mounted firing pin & his has no backstrap lines. I think a lot of my preference toward mine is because of the old way they were made which is what I grew up with. I would like to know what the cost to produce mine now compared to the one produced now would be. I'm guessing something like the cost difference in Springfield 1911's vs Nighthawk Custom. I can't afford a NC.

I had a similar experience. A friend and I were shooting. He had his new 625, I had my 1988 25-5. We shot each other's guns. Both guns were virtually the same as far as fit, finish, and functioning. The trigger pulls were similar.

 

[Rick_A]

Morning Rick_A

I guess I'm not sure what you are comparing there. The newest gun in your comparison review is 6 years old. (LOTS of changes at S&W over the last 6 years)

I've got a couple 2013's as well. They're both as perfect as can be. I must be the luckiest man alive.
20150109_135938 by Slick_Rick77, on Flickr

Plan on getting a couple 2015's real soon, too...

Has everything changed since then, too?

 

[jtcarm]

The guy that sent back 90% of the guns needs better luck, lower standards, or should stop breaking them. That's unbelievable.

Yep, I think I'd call it quits. For the cost of 10 new S&Ws, he could buy a Korth and probably have enough left over for a Freedom Arms. Or three or four Pythons.

 

[DonD]

Same old same old. The "older is better" crowd simply won't accept that newer is any good. Yes, older has nicer blueing and more hand fitting.

Newer is made of stronger materials held to tighter, repeatable tolerances.

Keep your older stuff, good guns but refusing to buy newer deprives you of a lot of fine firearms. Don

 

[bigggbbruce]

I'm wondering if S&W has continues to improve products in recent decades.

New is much better than old.

You get a lifetime warranty that many will use several times early in your firearms acquisition.

Oh wait.. that doesn't quite answer the question does it..?

 

[wolverine]

New is much better than old.

You get a lifetime warranty that many will use several times early in your firearms acquisition.

Oh wait.. that doesn't quite answer the question does it..?

Evening Bruce

I believe the new S&W's also come with a special glass of KoolAid.

 

[minconrevo]

It all depends. During some eras of the "old" guns (Pre-lock) QC was slack. Some of the firing pin on hammer revolvers let out of the plant during that time would not fire more than a couple rounds due to poor assembly. I had a model 28 like that I had to fix. Back in the early 70's I bought a new M-17 with a front sight installed off to one side. That one went back for warranty service some 40+ years ago and was made right. Others produced in the "old" gun era were exceptionally well executed.

I've seen the "old" revolvers run many 10,000's rounds with no problems. The users of some of the modern era MIM and lock revolvers report to me they just won't run that long anymore.

I have had problems getting a specialty caliber S&W AR-15 to run as long as it should. Factory warranted it out and made it right. The replacement AR-15 they sent is a good one.

I've not had problems with the current crop of S&W semi-auto handguns as far as long term durability BUT I don't have anything near 10,000 rounds through them yet. The only "old" semi I have much experience with was a M-41; it had many rounds through it with minimal problems. The M-39 with the early round hump feed ramp won't count since I got rid of it due to functional and accuracy issues.

 

[bigggbbruce]

I believe the new S&W's also come with a special glass of KoolAid.

That's called Performance Center.

 

[Rick_A]

Most folks lamenting over the days of olde and admonishing the guns of new seem have little to no experience with them personally save for hearsay and Internet ramblings.

Unless the purpose was purely collecting, there's little reason not to go new.

I've had a bunch of guns come through my hands and what the internet naysayers are making a fuss over is just not what I'm seeing.

As always, YMMV.

In short, and what this thread is supposed to be about, I would not hesitate to buy a new S&W. Compared to the old guns they are a poor investment but a smart buy as shooters.

If I expected all my guns to be perfect I wouldn't have any or they'd all have been sent back for silly reasons. As it is they are all pretty damn good enough.

 

[bigggbbruce]

New is much better than old.

You get a lifetime warranty that many will use several times early in your firearms acquisition.

Oh wait.. that doesn't quite answer the question does it..?

Most folks lamenting over the days of olde and admonishing the guns of new seem have little to no experience with them personally save for hearsay and Internet ramblings.

Unless the purpose was purely collecting, there's little reason not to go new.

My comment is tongue in cheek truth for me.

I have a personal number to call my assigned CS rep. I'm on a first name basis.

 

[gen3guy]

LGS has a new 629 'Classic' for $949. At that price, I will never know the answer to your question.

 

[robert1804]

If you're buying a shooter, new is better. Accuracy and durability are at least as good as older guns, probably better. And as prices rise on older guns, buying a new one for shooting increasingly makes sense.

If you're buying for aesthetics, or investment, older guns are obviously the choice, although their increasing prices will likely make them questionable investments sooner than is generally now believed.

Fast forward 30 or 40 years. Old style guns will have been very highly valued for at least 20 years by then and generally not used much because of the high value, scarcity of parts and lack of factory support. Given that desirability and nostalgia take about 30-40 years to come together, new style Smith revolvers will become sought after by then if not sooner. This scenario assumes S&W is still around and making revolvers in 30 or 40 years. What if only Ruger survives? Any scenario where S&W is not around in the future will make new style Smiths VERY desirable. .

 

[Clark B]

Of the last 10 S&W revolvers I have bought 9 have had to back to Smith for some sort of warranty repair (some have had to go back more than once).

I think by the second lemon I would have stopped buying said products. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I've owned far more firearms than I can truthfully count at this point and had exactly one, a Rossi revolver my dad gave me, that was a lemon. I think if I was having 90% failure rate with my firearms I would find a new hobby or check my operator head space and timing.

 

[LDThornton]

The short answer is "No".

 

[Twiki357]

Out of my 31 S&W revolvers, only two have serial numbers that start with three letters.
So I guess that I prefer old.

 

[John R]

I like the old ones much better, I think S&W quality control is non existent.
They still build a good gun, but they put out a lot more junk than they used to.

 

[wolverine]

I think by the second [COLOR=
"Red"]lemon[/COLOR] I would have stopped buying said products.
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I've o
wned far more firearms than I can truthfully count at this point
and had exactly one, a Rossi revolver my dad gave me, that
was a lemon. I think if I was having 90% failure rate with my
firearms I would find a new hobby or check my operator head
space and timing.

Morning Clark B

By saying lemon you seem to be comparing to non repairable automobiles.

Would you quit buying cars just because you needed
to take it back for warranty repair?

Same with S&W guns-- A lemon refers to a non-repairable
-- all my sent-in S&W revolvers were repairable
(some took more than one send-in though)

The "not buying" only works IF a person can find what
they want in another brand of gun & that brand is better.
Same with buying older S&W's, --that ONLY works if S&W
made what you want in an older version.

I looked at 8 brand new S&W model 69's before finding
one that looked to be fitted close to correctly & without
major machine marks. Trigger pull on the one I bought
was horrendous & cylinder was very tight on the recoil
shield (could barely spin it) but cyl to barrel gap was decent
& barrel shroud was fairly well aligned. Hammer had .011"
side play & trigger was just about as loose on lateral play.
Cyl carry up was awful but all but one early
(that makes it an easy repair).

It was actually the worst trigger pull & worst carry up
on all the 69's that I looked at but (those are repairable).
But barrel shroud alignment & cyl lock up position
was good (those are harder to repair).

I bought that 69 & sent it back to Smith for carry up
warranty work. It came back with 4 positions OK & the
5th not right so back it went again. This time it came
back timed correctly so I shimmed the hammer, shimmed
the trigger, shimmed the crane & did a trigger job.
(very smooth action now)

 

[chief38]

Just let me say my newest handgun was made in 1994.

IMHO (with FEW EXCEPTIONS) the new guns are not even close to the older ones in quality, fit & finish, smoothness of function, materials, design, durability, and sheer ruggedness.

I am sure there are younger members that will disagree and that's fine. One should own what he thinks is the best their money can buy. For me it's OLD!

 

[DonD]

IMHO (with FEW EXCEPTIONS) the new guns are not even close to the older ones in quality, fit & finish, smoothness of function, materials, design, durability, and sheer ruggedness.

What a load. Material strengths have been improved significantly, that translates to greater durability and ruggedness.

S&W engineers disagree with you as do individuals like John Taffin who I strongly suspect has vastly more expertise with revolvers than you do.

Guess you think old cars are better because their sheetmetal is much thicker. Guess what? They loose badly in crash tests with new cars. Old is seldom better than new except for nostalgia.

I guess an old school .38 Special snubbie is the height of revolver technology? Don

 

[joe44va]

I have four S&W revolvers and two autos in stainless. None have ever rusted. All my old steel pieces are gone and I'm OK with that. My only complaint is that the revolvers have to go back to get the action to be decent. All the revolvers but one have been swimming several times and been rained and snowed on and then left for dead for several days while out and about. Couldn't do that with the old ones. I also have a TC Predator in 308 that consistently shoots 3/4" groups. It used to cost a fortune to be able to do that. At 70 I've been doing this for a while and I like the new stuff. My 69 is my current favourite.